DOCSLIB.ORG

The Homeland Biodefense Science and Technology Capability Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Homeland Biodefense Science and Technology Capability Review HOMELAND BIODEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY REVIEW PRODUCT OF THE Biological Defense Research and Development Subcommittee OF THE Committee on Homeland and National Security OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL December 2016 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502 Dear Colleagues: The United States has developed considerable biodefense capability through investments that have expanded the Nation' s biomedical research infrastructure, fostered international research relationships, and established a medical, public health, and agricultural infrastructure that would be called upon to respond to a bioterrorism attack. These capabilities provide a critical foundation on which to build improved and comprehensive biodefense capabilities. Recognizing these accomplishments, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), led an interagency effort to identify key science and technology (S&T) needs impeding the ability to counter or respond to the intentional use of biological agents to cause harm to human or animal health in the United States. To produce this report, the Biological Defense Research and Development (BDRD) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Homeland and National Security conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the Nation' s biological defense capabilities, identified homeland biodefense science and technology needs, and prioritized them in a two-day session in October 2015. The most important needs are presented in this report. This work sets the stage for subsequent activity by the BDRD, in which Federal departments and agencies will review these needs and formulate actions that should be taken to address them. Sincerely, December 19, 2016 Gerald L. Epstein Chair, Biological Defense Research and Development Subcommittee Assistant Director for Biosecurity and Emerging Technologies White-House Office of Science and Technology Policy iii About the National Science and Technology Council The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means by which the Executive Branch coordinates science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the Federal research and development (R&D) enterprise. One of the NSTC’s primary objectives is establishing clear national goals for Federal science and technology investments. The NSTC prepares R&D packages aimed at accomplishing multiple national goals. The NSTC’s work is organized under five committees: Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability; Homeland and National Security; Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education; Science; and Technology. Each of these committees oversees subcommittees and working groups that are focused on different aspects of science and technology. More information is available at www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc. About the Office of Science and Technology Policy The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP’s responsibilities include advising the President in policy formulation and budget development on questions in which science and technology are important elements; articulating the President’s science and technology policy and programs; and fostering strong partnerships among Federal, state, and local governments, and the scientific communities in industry and academia. The Director of OSTP also serves as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and manages the NSTC. More information is available at www.whitehouse.gov/ostp. About the Biological Defense Research and Development Subcommittee (BDRD) The purpose of the BDRD is to provide all relevant Federal agencies a focused forum for coordinating and collaborating on defensive research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E) addressing biological threats to national security, including known biological threat (bacteria/viruses/fungi/toxins) and emerging infectious disease agents that have the potential to significantly affect the environment, plants, animals, and humans both within the United States and throughout the globe. These efforts will provide the United States Government with an improved capability to predict, detect, warn, diagnose, project impact, respond, recover, and attribute causative biological agents due to natural incidents, accidental release, or a deliberate attack. In addition, the BDRD coordinates biosecurity outreach and biosafety activities across the Federal government. Copyright Information This document is a work of the United States Government and is in the public domain (see 17 U.S.C. §105). Subject to the stipulations below, it may be distributed and copied with acknowledgement to OSTP. Copyrights to graphics included in this document are reserved by the original copyright holders or their assignees and are used here under the government’s license and by permission. Requests to use any images must be made to the provider identified in the image credits or to OSTP if no provider is identified. Printed in the United States of America, 2016. iv Report prepared by NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND AND NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE ON BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PANDEMIC PREDICTION AND FORECASTING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WORKING GROUP National Science and Technology Council Chair Staff John P. Holdren Afua Bruce Assistant to the President for Science Executive Director and Technology and Director, National Science and Technology Council Office of Science and Technology Policy Committee on Homeland and National Security Chairs Stephen Welby Steve Fetter Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary of Defense Associate Director for National Security and Research Engineering International Affairs Department of Defense Office of Science and Technology Policy Staff Reggie Brothers Tod Campanion Under Secretary for Science and Technology Acting Director, Interagency Office, S&T Directorate Department of Homeland Security Department of Homeland Security Subcommittee on Biological Defense Research and Development Chairs Staff Gerald Epstein Andrew Rickles Assistant Director for Biosecurity and Emerging Senior Biodefense Advisor Technologies Department of Homeland Security Office of Science and Technology Policy v Subcommittee on Biological Defense Research and Development Member Agencies Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security Department of Interior Department of Justice Department of State Department of Transportation Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Director of National Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Environmental Protection Agency National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation Office of Management and Budget Office of Science and Technology Policy National Security Council vi Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Process .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Threat Awareness ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Prevention and Protection ............................................................................................................................ 8 Surveillance and Detection .......................................................................................................................... 8 Response and Recovery ............................................................................................................................... 9 1 Introduction Biological weapons attacks could be mounted either inside or outside the United States and the effects of an initial attack could spread widely – whether because a contagious agent was used, because travelers exposed in one location may fall ill elsewhere, or because those in other locations will be concerned about being the next target. Disease outbreaks, whether natural or deliberate, respect no geographic or political borders. Preventing and controlling biological weapons threats is extremely challenging. Advances in biotechnology and the life sciences present the prospect of new toxins, live agents, and bioregulators that would require new detection methods, preventive measures, and treatments. These trends increase the risk for surprise. Anticipating such threats through intelligence efforts is made more difficult by the dual-use nature of biological technologies and infrastructure, meaning that the same science and technology base necessary for legitimate scientific, economic, and health applications can also be used for harm. Furthermore, adversaries may use denial and deception to conceal their illicit activities or at least not publicly reveal an attack has taken place until casualties are apparent. Deliberate attacks on the homeland with biological weapons could: • Cause acute casualty numbers in excess of local clinical capacities, long-term disease and disability, psychological trauma, and mass panic; • Disrupt critical sectors of our economy and the day-to-day
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hidden Cargo: a Cautionary Tale About Agroterrorism and the Safety of Imported Produce
    HIDDEN CARGO: A CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT AGROTERRORISM AND THE SAFETY OF IMPORTED PRODUCE 1. INTRODUCTION The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Septem­ ber 11, 2001 ("9/11") demonstrated to the United States ("U.S.") Gov­ ernment the U.S. is vulnerable to a wide range of potential terrorist at­ tacks. l The anthrax attacks that occurred immediately following the 9/11 attacks further demonstrated the vulnerability of the U.S. to biological attacks. 2 The U.S. Government was forced to accept its citizens were vulnerable to attacks within its own borders and the concern of almost every branch of government turned its focus toward reducing this vulner­ ability.3 Of the potential attacks that could occur, we should be the most concerned with biological attacks on our food supply. These attacks are relatively easy to initiate and can cause serious political and economic devastation within the victim nation. 4 Generally, acts of deliberate contamination of food with biological agents in a terrorist act are defined as "bioterrorism."5 The World Health Organization ("WHO") uses the term "food terrorism" which it defines as "an act or threat of deliberate contamination of food for human con- I Rona Hirschberg, John La Montagne & Anthony Fauci, Biomedical Research - An Integral Component of National Security, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (May 20,2004), at 2119, available at http://contenLnejrn.org/cgi/reprint/350/2112ll9.pdf (dis­ cussing the vulnerability of the U.S. to biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological terrorist attacks). 2 Id.; Anthony Fauci, Biodefence on the Research Agenda, NATURE, Feb.
    [Show full text]
  • Maximum Containment: the Most Controversial Labs in the World
    Maximum Containment: The Most Controversial Labs in the World By Alison K. Bruzek B.A. Biological Sciences Northwestern University, 2010 SUBMITTED TO THE PROGRAM IN COMPARATIVE MEDIA STUDIES/WRITING IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SCIENCE WRITING AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MASSACHUSETTS IN'T-QUTE OF 7ECHNOLOqi September 2013 JUL 0 22013 @2013 Alison K. Bruzek. All rights reserved. Li__RARI ES The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature of Author: -----.. Program in Con rativeMedia Studies/Writing June 10, 2013 Certified by: Philip Hilts Director, Knight Science Journalism Fellowships Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: Seth Mnookin Assistant Professor of Science Writing Director, Graduate Program in Science Writing 1 2 Maximum Containment: The Most Controversial Labs in the World By Alison K. Bruzek Submitted to the Program in Comparative Media Studies/Writing on June 10, 2013 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Science Writing ABSTRACT In 2002, following the September 1 1 th attacks and the anthrax letters, the United States allocated money to build two maximum containment biology labs. Called Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) facilities, these labs were built to research new vaccines, diagnostics, and treatments for emerging infectious diseases, potential biological weapons, and to contribute to the nation's biodefense. These labs were not the first dramatic reaction to the threat of biowarfare and are in fact, one product of a long history of the country's contentious relationship with biological weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Biodefense Public Report Implementation of the National Biodefense Strategy PREFACE
    2019 Biodefense Public Report Implementation of the National Biodefense Strategy PREFACE The National Biodefense Strategy (NBS or the Strategy) was released on September 18, 2018 and guides the U.S. government’s efforts to reduce the risk of, prepare for, respond to, and recover from biological incidents, whether naturally occurring, deliberate, or accidental in origin. National Security Presidential Memorandum-14 (NSPM-14) directs implementation of the Strategy, including the development of this Biodefense Public Report. This report does not primarily address activities related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because the data collection period concluded well before the HHS Secretary’s declaration of a public health emergency regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the content of this report is diverse and highlights some of the efforts across the U.S. government to address all biological threats. Development of this report followed the timeline laid out in NSPM-14. Work began among federal departments and agencies to collect biodefense data in late 2018, the first year to capture biodefense programs and activities across the federal government, and continued through the first half of 2019. This report describes a sampling of specific achievements and programs undertaken by federal agencies that reduce the risk of biological threats to the American people. In addition to the specific programs captured here, many other activities continue to be implemented across the federal government to protect the United States from a wide range of biological threats. Some of the efforts that have been described within this report, and many activities that have not been reported here, support the ongoing COVID-19 response.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioterrorism & Biodefense
    Hugh-Jones et al. J Bioterr Biodef 2011, S3 Bioterrorism & Biodefense http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2157-2526.S3-001 Review Article Open Access The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations Martin E Hugh-Jones1*, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg2 and Stuart Jacobsen3 1Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University; Anthrax Moderator, ProMED-mail, USA 2Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and State Univ. of NY-Purchase (retired); Scientists Working Group on CBW, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, USA 3Technical Consultant Silicon Materials, Dallas, TX,USA Abstract Unresolved scientificquestions, remaining ten years after the anthrax attacks, three years after the FBI accused a dead man of perpetrating the 2001 anthrax attacks singlehandedly, and more than a year since they closed the case without further investigation, indictment or trial, are perpetuating serious concerns that the FBI may have accused the wrong person of carrying out the anthrax attacks. The FBI has not produced concrete evidence on key questions: • Where and how were the anthrax spores in the attack letters prepared? There is no material evidence of where the attack anthrax was made, and no direct evidence that any specific individual made the anthrax, or mailed it. On the basis of a number` of assumptions, the FBI has not scrutinized the most likely laboratories. • How and why did the spore powders acquire the high levels of silicon and tin found in them? The FBI has repeatedly insisted that the powders in the letters contained no additives, but they also claim that they have not been able to reproduce the high silicon content in the powders, and there has been little public mention of the extraordinary presence of tin.
    [Show full text]
  • “Defending the Homeland from Bioterrorism: Are We Prepared?”
    2223 West Loop South Umair A. Shah, M.D., M.P.H. Houston, Texas 77027 Executive Director Tel: (713) 439-6000 Fax: (713) 439-6080 “Defending the Homeland from Bioterrorism: Are We Prepared?” Testimony of Umair A. Shah, MD, MPH Executive Director, Harris County Public Health, TX Past-President, National Association of County and City Health Officials Before the House Homeland Security Committee Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, & Recovery October 17, 2019 I would like to thank Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Rogers, Subcommittee Chairman Payne, Ranking Member King, and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of local health departments and public health emergency responders across the country. My name is Dr. Umair Shah, and I am the Executive Director for Harris County Public Health (HCPH) and the Local Health Authority for Harris County, Texas. Harris County is the third most populous county in the United States with 4.7 million people and is home to the nation’s 4th largest city, Houston. I am a Past President and former Board Member of NACCHO, the National Association of County and City Health Officials. NACCHO is the voice of the nearly 3,000 local health departments (LHDs) across the country. I am also a Past President and current Board Member of TACCHO, the Texas Association of City and County Health Officials, which represents approximately 45 LHDs across Texas. As background, Harris County is the most culturally diverse and one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the U.S. and home to the world’s largest medical complex, the Texas Medical Center, one of the nation’s busiest ports, the Port of Houston, and two of the nation’s busiest international airports.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Hearing of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness
    Hearing of the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery, Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives “Defending the Homeland from Bioterrorism: Are We Prepared?” October 17, 2019 Statement for the Record Asha M. George, DrPH Executive Director, Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense Chairman Payne, Ranking Member King, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for your invitation to provide the perspective of the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense. On behalf of our Commission – and as a former Subcommittee Staff Director and senior professional staff for this Committee – I am glad to have the opportunity today to discuss our findings and recommendations with respect to biological terrorism and national defense against biological threats. Our Commission assembled in 2014 to examine the biological threat to the United States and to develop recommendations to address gaps in national biodefense. Former Senator Joe Lieberman and former Secretary of Homeland Security and Governor Tom Ridge co- chair the Commission, and are joined by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Representative Jim Greenwood, former Homeland Security Advisor Ken Wainstein, and former Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism Advisor Lisa Monaco. Our commissioners possess many years of experience with national and homeland security. In October 2015, the Commission released its first report, A National Blueprint for Biodefense: Major Reform Needed to Optimize Efforts. Shortly thereafter, we presented our findings and recommendations to this Committee. We made 33 recommendations with 87 associated short-, medium-, and long-term programmatic, legislative, and policy action items. If implemented, these would improve federal efforts across the spectrum of biodefense activities – prevention, deterrence, preparedness, detection and surveillance, response, attribution, recovery, and mitigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Research Is Conducted at One of Four Biosafety Levels (BSL)
    Biological Safety Training Programs as a Component of Personnel Reliability Workshop Report Prepared by AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy Kavita Marfatia Berger, Ph.D. Kathryn A. Luke, Ph.D. AAAS Program on Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law Mark S. Frankel, Ph.D. Jennifer L. Sta.Ana Acknowledgements About AAAS This workshop was funded by the The American Association for the Bureau of International Security and Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the Nonproliferation at the U.S. Department world’s largest general scientific society of State. We would like to thank the and publisher of the journal, Science speakers and participants of the (www.sciencemag.org). AAAS was workshop who not only provided founded in 1848, and serves 262 valuable discussion but also contributed affiliated societies and academies of to the workshop report. We want to science, reaching 10 million individuals. especially thank Susan Piguet from the Science has the largest paid circulation Frontline Foundation, who was of any peer-reviewed general science invaluable during the organization of the journal in the world, with an estimated workshop, and Gigi Kwik Gronvall, total readership of 1 million. The non- Ph.D. (Center for Biosecurity of profit AAAS (www.aaas.org) is open to UPMC), Paul Meechan, Ph.D. (Merck all and fulfills its mission to “advance and Co., Inc.), and Julie Fischer, Ph.D. science and serve society” through (Stimson Center) who all provided initiatives in science policy; international valuable comments on the draft report. programs; science education; and more. AAAS would also like to acknowledge For the latest research news, log onto Mary Kate Mohlman, Vivian Cheng, EurekAlert!, www.eurekalert.org, the Meghan Cunningham, Stephanie Heath, premier science-news web site, a service Cristina Kapustij, Janet Kim and Idalia of AAAS.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioterrorism
    BIOTERRORISM Bioterrorism Overview What is Bioterrorism? A bioterrorism attack is the deliberate release of viruses, bacteria, or other germs (agents) used to cause illness or death in people, animals, or plants. These agents are typically found in nature, but it is possible that they could be changed to increase their ability to cause disease, make them resistant to current medicines, or to increase their ability to be spread into the environment. Biological agents can be spread through the air, through water, or in food. Terrorists may use biological agents because they can be extremely difficult to detect and do not cause illness for several hours to several days. Some bioterrorism agents, like the smallpox virus, can be spread from person to person and some, like anthrax, can not. For information on which bioterrorism agents can be spread from person to person, please see the alphabetical list of bioterrorism agents at www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist.asp. Bioterrorism Agent Categories Bioterrorism agents can be separated into three categories, depending on how easily they can be spread and the severity of illness or death they cause. Category A agents are considered the highest risk and Category C agents are those that are considered emerging threats for disease. Category A These high­priority agents include organisms or toxins that pose the highest risk to the public and national security because: • They can be easily spread or transmitted from person to person • They result in high death rates and have the potential for major public health impact • They might cause public panic and social disruption • They require special action for public health preparedness.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Background of the US Biowarfare Program
    Historical Background of the US Biowarfare Program In light of the current FBI/Patriot Act investigations against Critical Art Ensemble (CAE), it is worthwhile to point out two moments from the history of the US government’s involvement in biowarfare. The first concerns the specific issue of access to knowledge, education, and resources in the life sciences. The second concerns the general backdrop of US biodefense ideology. All of this information has been confirmed by several sources, and has been in the public domain for some time (see the references below). Needless to say, this is not meant to be a comprehensive “history” of biowarfare. Instead, it is a perspective on biowarfare from the vantage point of US involvement. What is evident is that the US government’s involvement in biowarfare raises far more substantial questions than the investigation of dissenting artists. - Eugene Thacker ([email protected]) 1. US Biological Warfare Program Simulant Field Tests, 1949-68 Although the particulars of the investigation against CAE have not been made clear, the charges made against them surround particular strains of bacteria which Steve Kurtz was culturing: Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii. As has been noted, both bacteria are non-lethal, commonly found in wind-blown dust or the soil, and are often used for educational purposes in biology labs across the US. They have also been used by the US biological warfare program. A short chronology follows: 1942: The War Research Service is created to oversee the creation of a US biological warfare program, partially in response to intelligence concerning possible biowarfare programs in Germany and Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Communicating in a Crisis: Biological Attack
    2. Use common sense, practice good hygiene and cleanliness to avoid spreading germs. “Communication before, during People who are potentially exposed should: and after a biological attack will 1. Follow instructions of health care providers and other public health officials. NEWS &TERRORISM 2. Expect to receive medical evaluation and treatment. Be prepared for long lines. If COMMUNICATING IN A CRISIS be a critical element in effectively the disease is contagious, persons exposed may be quarantined. A fact sheet from the National Academies and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security responding to the crisis and help­ If people become aware of a suspicious substance nearby, they should: ing people to protect themselves 1. Quickly get away. and recover.” 2. Cover their mouths and noses with layers of fabric that can filter the air but still allow breathing. —A Journalist’s Guide to Covering 3. Wash with soap and water. Bioterrorism (Radio and Television News 4. Contact authorities. BIOLOGICAL ATTACK Director’s Foundation, 2004) 5. Watch TV, listen to the radio, or check the Internet for official news and informa- HUMAN PATHOGENS, BIOTOXINS, tion including the signs and symptoms of the disease, if medications or vaccinations AND AGRICULTURAL THREATS are being distributed, and where to seek medical attention if they become sick. 6. Seek emergency medical attention if they become sick. Table 1. Diseases/Agents Listed by the CDC as Potential WHAT IS IT? Bioterror Threats (as of March 2005). The U.S. Department of Medical Treatment Agriculture maintains lists of animal and plant agents of concern. Table 2 lists general medical treatments for several biothreat agents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Basics of Biocontainment
    technology feature The basics of biocontainment Studying potentially dangerous microbes in animal models of the disease they cause takes some extra considerations, as researchers and staf must perform their work under the careful restrictions of diferent biosafety level laboratories. Jim Kling n early 2020, when the first concerns arose about a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, Iresearchers at biosafety facilities realized they would soon be pivoting to work with the novel coronavirus. Fortunately, many had previous experience to draw on, such as working with influenza virus or other airborne pathogens, or with SARS-CoV-1. That 2002 outbreak resulted in a more severe, though less transmissible, disease than the current virus. Preprints from Chinese and Asian researchers guided early efforts, said Kenneth Palmer, director of the University of Louisville (UoL) Regional Biocontainment Laboratory and the UofL Center for Predictive Medicine for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases. The team in Kentucky had also established a ferret model during their Keeping microbes, such as SARS-CoV-2, contained is a critical consideration for those studying work with SARS-CoV-1. “We found that dangerous agents in biosafety facilities. Credit: E. Dewalt, Springer Nature our experience with the ferret model of SARS-CoV-1 was very similar to the published experience [with SARS-CoV-2], and the procedures we are using for research are tiered from biosafety level (BSL) 1 to are reserved for agents with a high fatality are very similar between SARS-CoV1 4. BSL-1 can be used for agents that don’t rate, such as Ebola. They require full body and SARS-CoV2, and avian influenza consistently cause disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Threats in the DOD CB Defense Program
    http://www.airuniversity.af.edu/csds/ Addressing Biological Threats in the The Trinity Site DOD CB Defense Program Papers By Albert J. Mauroni http://www.airuniversity.af.edu/csds/ The U.S. government’s struggle with mitigating the effects There is a broader policy aspect associated with comparing of the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) has demonstrated the ca- COVID-19 with biological weapons, in that the context of the pability of pandemic outbreaks to cause global disruption and threat sources are very distinctly different. While pandemic highlighted the weaknesses of the U.S. public health system. outbreaks and deliberate biological attacks are both biological Across the world, as of April 2021, there were nearly three mil- threats, the U.S. government and public view a natural disease lion deaths attributed to COVID-19 and more than 75 million outbreak very differently than a deliberate nation-state or sub- people who have recovered from the disease. U.S. citizens ac- state group attack. A threat source actively targeting the U.S. count for about 20 percent of those fatalities. public with intent to cause mass casualties at a single point and The effects of this latest pandemic have been severe on time would cause a particular level of fear that a natural disease economic, political, and security interests as well. Even as poli- outbreak does not. Pandemic outbreaks are not new. While poli- ticians grapple with strategies to moderate the impact of future ticians and policy makers have referred to the concern of bioter- pandemics, some national security analysts are suggesting that rorism during public health discussions for literally decades, the the United States should re-examine its preparations for deliber- possibility of bioterrorist incidents has not been central to gov- ate biological releases, and in particular, biological terrorism.
    [Show full text]